meindzai wrote:If the kamma of a child is not our business, then we have no part in either it's liberation OR it's suffering. You can't say we're not responsible for one but we're responsible for the other.

Exactly. Each being's kamma is their own responsibility. There is Buddhist tradition that places great emphasis on being responsible for saving other beings, but it isn't the Theravada.

I'm not really putting forth a pro or anti parent argument here. I've been on both sides of the fence and I'm trying to keep an open mind. (Though deep in my heart I still feel that 90% of the population should be spayed or neutred before their teens).

This isn't an anti parent argument?

What I suspect here is that Buddhism seems to attract those with world negating and cynical views about family and parentage which seem to be justified by a certain interpretation of the Suttas.

Is it your view that one who places more value on liberation from suffering than pursuing worldly concerns is anti-family? Does one have to create a family in order to respect and cherish the institution? And thinking that "90% of the population should be spayed or neutered before their teens" isn't " world negating and cynical"?

TMingyur wrote:To sustain society and its welfare - just to mention an example aspect of focusing on others in the context of one's own life.

Sustaining society is sustaining samsara. If one's focus is sustaining samsara, how does one escape from it?

As already said you are choosing how to see things.
"Society" may also be seen as sentient beings living together and - at least most of them - contributing to the welfare of all under conditions that are as they are. Some of them contribute being motivated to attain their own personal goals, some of them contribute through just doing what has to be done and some of them contribute being altruistically motivated. And of course some of them work against the welfare of all due to selfish motivations.

The whole of Buddha's teaching is to lead to cessation, ending of craving, which in turn ends clinging, which will end becoming, which will end birth, and all the suffering that follows. If our hope is all beings come to cessation, to be liberated from the rounds of births, from samsara, we can logically assume giving birth will come to cessation as well.

Wind wrote:If our hope is all beings come to cessation, to be liberated from the rounds of births, from samsara, we can logically assume giving birth will come to cessation as well.

This strongly depends on your understanding of "birth" in the context of this thread and your understanding of "birth" in the context of "cessation of birth". As we can see from discussions about 12 links of dependent origination the understanding of "birth" in the context of "cessation of birth" is variable.

I'm glad, too. But how could they, they didn't know about the dhamma. Kamma-vipāka is unthinkable, incomprehensible, impenetrable. Astonishing, amazing and inconceivable what possibly could be the outcome.
Suddhodana first wasn't very pleased about his son eventually going forth and not becoming a king. How much trouble he had trying to avoid the forecasting and what suffering it must have been as he lost his wife. Okay in the end he became an arahant, but birth still brought suffering. What about Maha Maya, she died seven days after the Buddhas birth. It is said that she was reborn in Tusita, but did she ever became an arahant, I don't know.
The whole thing seems to be a quite complex and a somewhat odd issue...

meindzai wrote:

acinteyyo wrote:

meindzai wrote:Again what's missing here is the understanding that whether you have kids or not, these beings will be born into samsara based on their own kamma.

I already tried to point out that the kamma of other beings is not our business.

If the kamma of a child is not our business, then we have no part in either it's liberation OR it's suffering. You can't say we're not responsible for one but we're responsible for the other.

You're right but I didn't say that we're responsible for one but not for the other, because I'm not talking about the being's suffering. As you can see I said: "... the kamma of other beings is not our business."

acinteyyo wrote:All the suffering starts with birth and in my eyes the parents are at least partially responsible.

I'm not talking about the child's suffering here. Don't get me wrong.

best wishes, acintyyo

Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

meindzai wrote:
I'm not really putting forth a pro or anti parent argument here. I've been on both sides of the fence and I'm trying to keep an open mind. (Though deep in my heart I still feel that 90% of the population should be spayed or neutred before their teens).

This isn't an anti parent argument?

No, it's just really bad humor. Sorry.

Is it your view that one who places more value on liberation from suffering than pursuing worldly concerns is anti-family?

It's not anti family, but if one is thinking that they don't want kids becuase it will interfere with their goal of liberation, one is clearly thinking selfishly. It may be a necessary paradox, at least initially.

Does one have to create a family in order to respect and cherish the institution? And thinking that "90% of the population should be spayed or neutered before their teens" isn't " world negating and cynical"?

[/quote]

As I said, more of a joke, but yes, definately cynical. Not as sure about world negating. I work on a helpdesk so I tend to think most people are idiots. As I said, Buddhism attracts cynical people and I am certainly one of them. I am being perfectly honest about that, and about my own conflicts on this issue. The problem is how not to read our cynical and world negating views into the Dhamma, which is very easy to do, given that Dhamma teachings go against the stream.

I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned already but as modern westerners we are in a unique position where the question of having children is considered optional.

In most non western cultures having children is still considered very important. In Thailand for example your children are your superannuation, you are reliant on them to look after you in your old age, I think to most Thai people it's inconceivable that you wouldn't want to have kids unless you are a monk or gay. I think a lot of non-western cultures are the same, and even in the West there are religious denominations that encourage their followers to go forth and multiply. Also probably as little as 50 to 100 years ago in the west it was pretty much assumed everybody would want to have kids.

So I think we should be grateful if we are born in an age and culture where we have the choice.

I didn't really want to have kids as I knew my practice would suffer but my wife did, and yes I don't get to do as many formal retreats as I used to. However what I have learned is also valuable. Kids really take you out of your comfort zone and force you to learn to be unselfish, to learn that you can't control everything in your life, so you learn a different mode of practice. This mode of practice I see is very similar to that used by Ajahn Chah, he was always pushing people against the grain, trying to get them out of their comfort zone, so I think there is wisdom to be gained if you're open to it.

I think there is valuable learning in being a parent just as there is in being a monastic, if you are lucky you'll get the opportunity to do both in your lifetime.

“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

Goofaholix wrote:I think there is valuable learning in being a parent just as there is in being a monastic, if you are lucky you'll get the opportunity to do both in your lifetime.

Nice post Mr Holix ..

I agree and would go as far to say that parenthood can be a whole lifetimes practice on it's own.

In most non western cultures having children is still considered very important. In Thailand for example your children are your superannuation, you are reliant on them to look after you in your old age,

In any culture care for the old falls upon the young.

Western society simply allows for people to escape the sacrifices of having their own children in the sure and certain knowledge that they will be supported in old age by the children of those who did.

Clueless Git wrote:
Western society simply allows for people to escape the sacrifices of having their own children in the sure and certain knowledge that they will be supported in old age by the children of those who did.

Yes, and I suspect as a result in a few decades Western Society will be heading towards extinction, or as is already the case our society will be kept populated by immigration from cultures that are still having a lot of children.

“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

Goofaholix wrote:In most non western cultures having children is still considered very important. In Thailand for example your children are your superannuation, you are reliant on them to look after you in your old age, I think to most Thai people it's inconceivable that you wouldn't want to have kids unless you are a monk or gay. I think a lot of non-western cultures are the same, and even in the West there are religious denominations that encourage their followers to go forth and multiply. Also probably as little as 50 to 100 years ago in the west it was pretty much assumed everybody would want to have kids.

Hi Goofaholix.

I've found the exception My Thai wife, her two sisters, and some of their friends do not want to have kids.

Clueless Git wrote:
Western society simply allows for people to escape the sacrifices of having their own children in the sure and certain knowledge that they will be supported in old age by the children of those who did.

Yes, and I suspect as a result in a few decades Western Society will be heading towards extinction, or as is already the case our society will be kept populated by immigration from cultures that are still having a lot of children.

Many developed countries, such as those in Western Europe and Japan are having an annual decrease in population due to so many people not having children. Now Japan is offering money for couples to have more children:

David N. Snyder wrote:Many developed countries, such as those in Western Europe and Japan are having an annual decrease in population due to so many people not having children. Now Japan is offering money for couples to have more children:

Immigration could easily solve a country's population problem, but there are always some people in every country who look down on immigration as a threat to the dominant culture.

As I understand right now - the U.S. actually has a negative population growth in terms of reproduction, but positive population growth due to immigration. Some people (especially very conservative types) see this as a threat.